From Del Bigtree: "Rebecca Bredow goes to jail. Dad wins split custody, immediately abandons son to go on The Doctors TV show ‬in Los Angeles. Del Bigtree just happened to be on the same flight. Check it out. " You can follow Del's show on Facebook here.

I think we are more less in agreement, and what a really irritating experience with that girl! I am surprised anyone was allowed to debate, but if she won maybe there are more sympathisers out there than we thought.

The whole story IS very disturbing. Thinking further about why the judge did not even consider what the mother had learned about the dangers of vaccines and her desire to avoid them, made me realize that above all, she was not willing to set a precedent which would have had the pharma hounds of hell destroy her, and every news outlet in the world wakefielding her.

As for what our society believes as a whole, I would love to see another reliable survey done. I would love to believe that most people now are wary of vaccines and waiting for the coming significant event which would turn the tide. I have been depressed by everyone I know, a neighbor, many friends, the school staff, the speech therapist, NONE of them believing that vaccines cause autism. It really makes you wonder if they all live underground in the darkness. The daughter of a friend in St. Louis asked me for material on vaccine damage to help her prepare for a debate. I sent her a LOT of 100% convincing studies and articles on most of the vaccines. She said she won the debate. But when we spent the night with them in April before flying to Tampa the next day, the girl said condescendingly that of course she was just defending the side she had been assigned, that OBVIOUSLY vaccines did not cause autism. And I argued with her and then with her father for hours. The father has a Ph.D., yet told me that measles was a deadly disease (although he had had it as a boy in Romania, no big deal), and that fevers are dangerous in themselves and must be lowered at all costs. I put something on my Facebook page, either about measles in Europe or maybe just in Romania, and he and several of his Romanian friends who are doctors posted very condescending comments.

It is a war and everyone must realize it and take the necessary measures to protect ourselves and our families. The law can easily be used against us and can easily be changed "for the greater good." At this time most of us can get exemptions or homeschool. But once you have a child with one of "them," you'd better protect yourself from the outset with contractual terms preserving the right to make medical decisions yourself (better not even to mention vaccines if you can help it).

I just saw your comment about Bruesewitz which had somehow got lost. I would only say that I am in favour of exploring every avenue and if Del Bigtree and RFKjnr want to pursue the HHS over failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the products are safe - in contravention of the terms of the 1986 act -
I am certainly in favour of that too. It is a perfectly reasonable point.

I certainly agree that this how I expect things to turn out presently in a court case between parents disputing over vaccination, but I am very unclear now even against such a background that the judge was acting fairly to Rebecca Bredow, accepting false evidence apparently from the father and his lawyer and blocking evidence from her: and finally awarding the (child abusing) father equal rights. Should the judge have even listened to the father and his lawyer in first place without trying to find out what she was being told was true? I think all of these people were falling over backwards, including the judge, to put Bredow in the wrong. I doubt btw - technically - whether what "our society overwhelmingly believes" is directly what is at issue as opposed to what the official advice is. What happened was not straightforward and not how it was originally reported.

My point is this: that when I first heard about this story I just thought the mother had screwed up and now it looks a lot more complicated and seedy.

It's not fair to say that I suggested that the mother "had it coming to her." But I think that if you feel very strongly that something legal is not right, then you have to be willing to walk the walk and take the consequences. It's admirable when it's done for the right reasons. Our society at this time overwhelmingly believes that vaccines are in the child's best interest, and so it follows that in cases like this, the court will find in favor of vaccinating him. I think expecting the judge to come around to our point of view and send Rebecca home straight away and not force vaccination is expecting a deus ex machina, not realistic.

Women in free countries are free to inform ourselves. But if they want to send their children to school in California, West Virginia, or Mississippi, they'll probably have to vaccinate them. They could move to another state or try to get a medical exemption, or home school. There are still a number of options, but probably not public school (or private) unless they vax. And, if they are married or divorced, they have to recognize that unless they have full custody of the child, or a relevant clause in a prenuptial agreement, they have to let their husband have equal say in the vaccine decision. And if it comes down to I say No, he says Yes, then I guess the court gets to decide, and at this time it's always going to decide in favor of vaccination.

I looked at the Bruesewitz case again. It looks to me as though the majority, including Scalia, were saying that EVERYONE clamored to get vaccines, to protect us all from certain death. First of all, the justices are old and completely out of touch to say what they did as late as 2011. He said that because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, that when someone is injured by a vaccine for a reason which the vaccine company could not have avoided in its diligent design and production of the magic elixir, then that was just the way it goes, and the company is in no way at fault. I don't think the phrase "unavoidably unsafe" was stated as a principle of human rights, meaning that since this was the case, no one could be forced to take them, if they didn't want to take the risk. The Supreme Court in around 1900 ruled that state laws could COMPEL people to get vaccines, even if they had had severe adverse reactions to them in the past. For the "greater good." Like drafting young men to go to war. Everyone recognizes that it's unavoidably unsafe to go fight in a war, but sometimes the state has a right to force you to do so anyway.

Rather than appeal to the Supreme Court, it would be better to refer to the Nuremberg Code which made informed consent a requisite to be obtained before administering any medical procedure. And that IS a human right.

But as a matter of law, I think that given existing laws, the court ruled as it had to do. The laws need to be changed, but can't be until a majority of voters in a state take the necessary steps to persuade their legislators to change them. It would have been a more interesting case if the couple had had a prenuptial agreement in which it was specified that in case of divorce, the wife had the right to unilaterally make all medical decisions for the son, and the husband later tried to revoke the terms of the contract for the sake of "protecting" the son as he then believed appropriate.

Yes, Scalia's death was suspicious and I suspect - in a post-lawful society - not properly investigated. I think it must be absolutely certain that the last thing he was trying to do in his judgment in the Bruesewitz case was help the vaccine injured, although this does not mean that lawyers on our side should not keep scrutinising it. A major point that Del Bigtree was making in the latter part of his program was that in terms of the Vaccine Injury Act HHS had not kept their side of the bargain in insuring that the products were as safe as they could be, or even tested for safety at all. I seem to recall that the idea that the act was supposed to bring about improvements in the products ran through Scalia's judgment so showing than in the event the attempts to do so were sub-zero may very well be germane.

Thank God for Del Bigtree, he speaks for me and all of us. I have to say to everyone here, I have personal experience; doctors, civil servants, lawyers, judges are all conspiring together in this corruption. We must stop kidding ourselves that they're not aware of the issues. That "judge's" husband is a doctor? So how much money are they making out of vaccines?
They raise the question of the Supreme Court ruling, headed by Judge Scalia, which ruled that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Scalia was later murdered - sorry, died in suspicious circumstances.
I have one thing to say to James Horne. Children grow up, usually to be bigger than their fathers! But I dare say you won't be interested in him by then, and will run away just as you did from the amazing Del Bigtree.

It did seem quite possible from original reports that Rebecca Bredow had been negligent in her dealing with the court, but this was not at all evident on seeing this report. I note that while she did say her time in jail was miserable (and the circumstances of incarceration with her son in the charge of her child abusive former husband they were bound to be) her manner in the interview was far from self-pitying.

But I am sorry I don't see fairness, I don't see due process, I don't see any real concern by the court for the well-being of the child and I don't believe that Rebecca Bredow had it coming to her. Any model for dealing with these issues would need a better and more competent judge than that.

People are asking actresses now how all this Hollywood sexual coercion could possibly have gone on for so long with nothing being done. It reminds me very much of the vaccine injured and how the pro-vaxx people always say, "there can't be a huge conspiracy that's hurting children. It's madness to say such a thing." The Hollywood situation shows us that it is easily done.

Stone and Parker,
In point of fact, vaccines are avoidable when child-bearing women live in free societies.
Free to know who Dr Mikovitz is.
Free to know who Dr Humphries is.
Free to know who Dr Bark is.
Free to know who Dr Tenpenny is.
Free to know who Dr Obuchanych is.
Free to know who Dr Tomlynivich is.

Sorry, i didn't spell any of the the names of those brilliant scientists correctly but you "ladies" know what i mean.

Rebecca was the first to say it in the video above, but she probably got it from Del beforehand (at 11:02 she says she was exercising a right granted by the Supreme Court, and at 11:15 that the Supreme Court had supported this right). (I can't replay to get the exact words of the first one, the video stalled.) This is not correct. The Supreme Court has never granted parents the right to choose or refuse: that has always been up to state law. Of course it's true to say that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, but vaccine laws assume that the benefits outweigh the risks for the vast majority. And of course even that's not correct, but that's another story. But the principle is surely that sometimes it's reasonable to do things which are unavoidably unsafe, like ride in a car. Have an operation. Most people are still laboring under the assumption that pertussis, measles, flu, and hep-A are killer diseases that only herd immunity by vaccine is preventing from killing millions.

She said that her five days in jail were the most miserable of her life, alone with her thoughts. I think it's admirable that she went to jail for her beliefs, but at least she was not physically abused as she would be in many countries. I think it's exaggerating to say they were miserable. I support civil disobedience in many cases, but she was still in contempt of court, and that was a predictable outcome.

I just think that our cause would be better served if everyone were more measured and accurate in their statements. It would be good to have a law against mandates and one granting the custodial parent the right to make medical decisions. But until such a law is in place, you have to play by the rules of the current game. Or you can choose to rebel, take your child out of the country, or whatever. But I wouldn't say what is not accurate.

The man seems to be seeking attention. Maybe laying the grounds to sue for full custody or 50-50 custody. I have nothing good to say about him.

I think we just need to keep educating the public about vaccine damage, especially autism, and about how relatively mild measles, pertussis, flu, and hep-A usually are. And accurate information about the others as well. I don't think we're ever going to reach the day where one parent can force non-vaccination over the other parent's will.

The view about Bruesewitz was surely coming from Del, not "the mother" (although she may have agreed with him) and of course he is essentially right that unhelpful though Scalia's judgement was in terms of suing the manufacturer it did argue just that principle (without citing the precise formula). Del is adopting a view of the law which in her case was not about suing the manufacturer, obviously having taken much legal advice for the ICAN complaint to the HHS and we can see this in the latter half of this excellent and fascinating program. I don't think it is remotely right to say that they were not being honest.

It is very hard to have any charitable views about the motives of the father after seeing what we saw.

The court seems to have decided a lot of things on the father's say so, and refused previously accepted court evidence about his past failing including watching pornography with his son present.

I listened to Del Bigtree's report. I don't think he and the mother were being honest when they said that the Supreme Court had upheld her right to refuse vaccination when it said that vaccination was inherently unsafe. The problem is that the VPDs can all ALSO be very dangerous or fatal, only a few of them often, but it's still possible. The Supreme Court ruled AGAINST Bruesewitz. At this time, nearly all public authorities believe and act as though the VPDs were MORE dangerous than the vaccines. So they act as though on the whole it were safer to get the vaccines than to refuse them. And that means that the judge was acting within the law to sentence the mother to seven days in jail while the father caught the boy up on his vaccines.

Probably the father was acting vindictively, and it might be possible to substantiate that, since he was fine with the mother's refusing vaccines up until now. But it's always possible to have an epiphany one way or the other. That would be up to a court to decide, and it already did.

I think the value of this incident is to get the matter discussed widely, maybe make people more cautious about getting married to someone who may support vaccination. If the boy had had a dramatic reaction to his getting so many vaccines in one week, it would have given everyone more food for thought (not that I'm wishing that on him). As it is, we'll just have to keep creeping along. We might ask our legislators to pass a law giving the custodial parent the authority to make medical decisions for the minor child. Or couples which marry might put that as a clause in their marital contract in the case of their divorce. As long as they didn't say the v- word, I think that would be the best solution to prevent this situation in the future. Vaccines would then fall within the authority of the person making medical decisions. Without such a law, this kind of situation will recur again and again.

Dad and his gum-chewing scumbag lawyer are ALL guilt, embarrassment, and fear....
Thank-YOU, Del Bigtree, and AoA, for giving me a much deeper look at this NATIONAL NEWS story than the lame-stream media would.... I *knew* there was more to the story!....
And y'know, Del, *you* might be why he's not getting any more media!....
That shyster lawyer shoulda' been more ready for the media....He's a freakin' Cub Scout!....
Since the media has told us (some) about Mom going to jail, but NOT about DAD....????....
WHY....????....
Anyway, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, Folks!....

Agree wholeheartedly with your glowing reviews of this .. "riveting 67 minutes" .. of MUST SEE TELEVISION!!!

The segment on Rebecca Bredow was stunning .. exposing the shallow, careless people who joined together .. dad, his lawyer, the judge, the Health Dept that eventually vaccinated the child, producers of "The Doctors" show. All of them well-deserving of Del's expert evaluation of what amounts to collective child abuse. Shame on all of them.

Am curious to see how many television interviews dad and his lawyer will appear on now that both have accomplished their task of jailing mom .. to gain custody of the 9 year old boy? Especially interested if their scheduled appearance on "The Doctors" airs.

Also curious to see response to Del's legal challenge to HHS .. and .. even more important .. who does NOT respond .. like Congress or our President.

Now that's hot stuff! Thanks for posting this. I needed some good news-- like that letter to HHS-- from Del Bigtree and many groups! I, too, am so sorry for Rebecca's son. I hope he does not have a serious reaction to all the shots his father took him to receive at the Health Department, rather than at his pediatrician's office?! Was cost a factor? Did he not want to have to pay a co-pay, when he could get the shots for free? Are all the shots his son received even going to be noted in the son's pediatrician's medical record for him, or will the pediatrician still think that boy needs those shots?

But the worst is that the father went jetting off with his attorney immediately to California, right after the last hearing which determined he would have 50% custody of his son, and even one more night alone with his son, before returning him to his mother Rebecca. Instead, this father went off to California without his son, so he could appear on The Doctors, rather than stay home in Michigan to care for his traumatized son watching for any potential vaccine reaction signs in him due to all the vaccines he just had injected into his child, simultaneously. Disgusting behavior from the father, who cares more about TV publicity than his own son's welfare. Just how is that man to bring his son to school on the days when he has custody if he lives 70 miles away from that school? Or is the school supposed to bus him in to school and back home to the father every day when he has custody of him?

The weirdest part is that the "father" wanted the mother to do the vaccinating, and the judge who is apparently married to a doctor so that often seems to transfer quite a degree of expertise (or at least unquestioning "confidence") in my experience had no qualms about ordering 8 vaccines done in a week (I know they do this to small infants and the military quite often, but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome anecdotally to do "catch up" vaccinating, so) rather than just having the "father" get things started more slowly (and maybe they have other means of motivating the judge...it certainly seems possible that they might have lots of ways of motivating this father), was this engineered behind the scenes to get the headline "Mother Jailed for Refusing Vaccines!" seen in all the national corporate media? What does that convey, especially to headline readers? Then The Doctors moved so quickly to get the dad on camera? with his lawyer? Though maybe not on air now. A comment on Facebook said he was going to be on Good Morning America today. Was that rumor only or cancelled?

Anyway, I'm extremely grateful Del "coincidentally" flew on the same flight and is covering this case.

Further, to learn that Trump's possible vaccine safety commission that freaked out "health" organizations galore is essentially already legislated to be happening annually, but obviously not happening... do we have grounds to sue for any injuries incurred in the timeframe that this part of the NCVIA or NVICP has been abrogated?!?

No one should miss this - 67 riveting minutes. The first 40 on the Bredow case with her repulsive, vindictive former husband and his squalid lawyer caught on Del's iphone on an aeroplane and at LA airport when he was supposed to be looking after his son back in Michigan. The rest on the ICAN letter to the HHS calling on them to conduct the safety test on vaccines which were supposed to be conducted under the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and never were. I cannot yet find the letter on the ICAN site but I hope it will soon be published. I would add as a British citizen how critical the 1986 act was for the position of the vaccine industry across the world because it was obviously the US courts where the industry would be taken to the cleaners if they did what they were alas planning to do.

Del gets over-excited but he's got a lot to be over-excited about. Rebecca's calm dignity in the circumstances is a wonder to behold. Anybody who wants to say anything derogatory about her will see a competent, responsible person who did not deserve any of this.

As to VAERS I have often written about it here (and not least the fact that it is only a passive reporting system). I wrote about it less then two and half tears ago when it had tipped half-a-million reports

and now it has more than tipped 600,000 (and as you would expect the more vaccines there are the greater the damage) but also of course this is likely due to the deliberate negligence of government agencies only 1% of actual cases.

Lot of coincidences Del.Thanks for not editing James and Pan ran..well done! Rebecca just sorry for your lad having all those shots but you couldn't have done anymore.James Horne the next star of Pharma meets the criteria..